S
Supply & Demand Zones (GTF)
GTF
Analysed 01 Jul 2026, 11:31 PM IST
Detected components (auto-read from transcript)
Claims it makes (quotes pulled from the transcript)
- “Mark a demand zone — a tight base followed by an explosive green departure — then buy the first fresh return to it, stop below the base, target 2R. Pitched as winning 70–80% of the time, with the zone getting <em>weaker</em> on every retest and the method working symmetrically on the short side.”
Verdict
The most defensible retail strategy we've reviewed, and unusually, two of its five specific claims genuinely hold in the data. Zones really do decay with retests — fresh and 2nd-test entries are positive (+0.11R, +0.12R), but 3rd-and-beyond returns collapse to a 30% win rate and −0.37R: revisited zones are failing zones, and that 'fresh-is-strongest, opposite-of-support/resistance' framing is real. Bigger explosive candles also win more (53% vs 46%). The framework teaches discipline and a real, small positive edge on quality stocks.
How we tested it
Mechanized on 158 quality stocks daily over 8 years with real Zerodha delivery costs, then we isolated each specific claim: win rate at a clean 2:1, fresh vs 2nd vs 3rd-tested zones, weekly+daily confluence, and the symmetric supply-zone short.
But the marquee number is false: the measured fresh-zone win rate is ~46% at a clean 2:1, not 70–80% — about 1.6× oversold. The short side loses (~28% win, −0.51R), so it is not symmetric; only the long, with-trend version is positive. The multi-timeframe 'confluence' setup fired only 3 times in 8 years — unprovable. And the edge is thin and regime-sensitive (negative in 2024) — heavy 0.30% slippage pushes it to breakeven. Trade it for the discipline and the 'never fade a 3rd-tested zone' rule, not for the 80%.
💬 Trader reviews (traded this? tell others what really happened)
No reviews yet — be the first. Real experiences help other traders more than any backtest.
User opinions, not investment advice. Reviews are moderated before publishing.